We prepared a demand on our client’s behalf that demonstrated that the manner in which the doorway opened into the aisleway is a violation of the Massachusetts Building Code, 780 CMR 1005.2 which forbids such encroachment. We further showed that the caution signage was not visible to patrons in the aisleway until the door was opened into them, rendering the warning useless. The insurer changed its position on liability and agreed to negotiate a settlement.

Over the course of the next several months, we were able to secure and present out client’s medical bills and reach a settlement with the restaurant’s insurer. We were also able to work with Medicare to reduce the amount of the lien that our client had to pay back, in order that he could have more money in his pocket. Finally, the restaurant changed the doorway to swing into the room as opposed to out into the aisleway, foreclosing the risk of this happening to anyone else.

If you have been injured by unsafe conditions on someone’s property, learn your legal rights. Read more about premises liability laws.

The Plaintiff alleged injuries to his neck and back, and sued the Defendant owners of the dwelling as well as the roofing contractor for negligence. The roofer conceded liability due to a lack of appropriate fall protection, and settled with the Plaintiff before the trial.

The trial proceeded against the owners only. The Plaintiff alleged that the owners had hired the roofer to replace the roof, including over the porch. The Plaintiff alleged that the owners were the project’s general contractor and supervisor, and had failed to properly maintain the roof in a reasonably safe condition and also failed to properly supervise the construction and negligent installation of the porch roof decades before. The Plaintiff argued that the porch roof collapsed when he stood on it to make some routine repairs.

The defense did not actively dispute the Plaintiff’s claimed damages, and instead focused on the question of liability for the claimed damages. The owners argued that they could not be liable for the alleged negligent construction and installation of the property’s porch roof, which occurred several decades before. The owners also argued that they could not be held liable for any role they may have played as contractor or supervisor of the work on the porch roof.

Deliberating for only two hours, the jury found in favor of the owners and a defense verdict was entered. On October 1, 2018, Jacob Lavin argued before the Appeals Court, on issues raised by the plaintiff as to the propriety of jury instructions given by the Superior Court.

For more about the case, please click on the below link:
https://verdictsearch.com/verdict/homeowners-denied-liability-for-tenants-fall-through-porch-roof